Romie David Bishop v. , 559 F. App'x 175 ( 2014 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-3805
___________
In re: ROMIE DAVID BISHOP and SHIRLEY ANN BISHOP,
Debtors
Romie David Bishop,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 13-cv-00958)
District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 21, 2014
Before: FUENTES, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 21, 2014)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Romie and Shirley Bishop appeal the District Court’s order affirming the
Bankruptcy Court’s orders which struck their notice of appeal from a judgment of the
Delaware Superior Court. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s
order.
In July 2009, CitiMortgage filed a complaint against the Bishops in the Delaware
Superior Court. The Bishops subsequently filed a bankruptcy petition. In May 2012, the
United States Bankruptcy Court lifted the automatic stay to allow the litigation between
the Bishops and CitiMortgage to proceed in the Delaware Superior Court. After a three-
day trial, the Superior Court entered a foreclosure judgment in favor of CitiMortgage.
The Bishops sought to appeal the judgment of the Delaware Superior Court to the
Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court struck the notice of appeal and subsequently
denied the Bishop’s motion to amend the notice of appeal. It noted that it lacked
jurisdiction to review rulings of the Delaware Superior Court.
The Bishops appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s orders to the District Court. The
District Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in striking
the pleading and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s orders. The Bishops filed a notice of
appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We exercise plenary
review over the District Court’s legal conclusions. In re Friedman’s Inc., 738 F.3d 547,
551 (3d Cir. 2013). We agree with the District Court that the Bankruptcy Court did not
abuse its discretion in striking the Bishops’ frivolous pleading. While the Bishops claim
to have a federal due process right to appeal final orders from a state court to a federal
court, they cite no authority for such a proposition. To the contrary, the Bankruptcy
Court and the District Court lacked the power to review the merits of the Delaware state
court proceeding. In re James, 940 F.2d 46, 52-53 (3d Cir. 1991); see also In re Knapper,
407 F.3d 573, 579-81 (3d Cir. 2005). While the Bishops argue that the First Amendment
2
allows them to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it does not allow
them to relitigate a matter in federal court that has already been decided against them by a
state court. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid.
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Baseless litigation is not immunized by the First
Amendment right to petition. Bill Johnson’s Rests., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 743
(1983).
Appellants’ argument that the Clerk’s office restricts public access to the docket
numbers for the purpose of creating grounds to dismiss an appeal on technical reasons is
baseless. If Appellants need to refer to a docket entry, they can simply list the date the
document was filed and the title of the document. Appellants’ appeal of the District
Court’s order does not fail for technical reasons or because they are proceeding pro se;
rather, their appeal is unsuccessful for the wholly substantive reasons explained above.
Appellants are advised that future frivolous pleadings may result in financial sanctions
and filing limitations.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order. We have
considered each argument presented in Appellants’ brief, and none state a basis for
undermining the District Court’s decision. Appellants’ motion for the notice of appeal to
be construed as filed on behalf of Shirley Bishop is granted. Appellants’ motion to strike
and letter motion of complaint are denied.
3